Brady Campaign calls for ban on HUNTING ammunition.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone remember a few years back when Sarah Brady's son was given a "Sniper Rifle" for Christmas.......by his parents? A scoped, bolt-action rifle, a 30-06 IIRC.

This whole debate is moot unless we can shift the focus from the weapons to the CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. I can go buy a gallon of gasoline, and a book of matches, and kill 100 people, very easily. There's nothing criminal about buying gasoline or possessing it, it's only a problem when it's used IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. Until we start dealing with criminals and criminal behavior nothing will get any better.

The point needs to be made, over and over, that this whole debate isn't about gun control. It's about People Control. And it's being done by the most power-hungry politicians out there.

How about if we make up some posters equating Sarah Brady with Hitler? That might get the media's attention. After all, they both favored gun control. So did Stalin, Pol Pot, and a thousand mass murderers. We should be screaming that from the rafters, and MAKE the media take a look at it.

As for jargon, two thoughts. "Cop-Killer Bullets" were banned long ago.......and they beat that phrase into our heads, even though NO COP WAS EVER KILLED WITH THEM.

If you say you're not worried about a ban on machine guns because you don't own any, remember this..........In 1986, Mario Biaggi got stun guns banned in New York BY CALLING THEM MACHINE-GUNS. If you can ban a machine gun, you can ban anything you CALL a machine gun. These are the tactics the anti's use, lots of fear-mongering and mis-information. We need to start being more vocal about their tactics, and get more aggressive about defending our rights, while we still have them!

Papajohn
 
I guess I better hide my "sniper rifle" that I use to get them very very very dangerous squirrels with. Yes this should be a wake up call for all of the hunters that think that the government wouldn't come after their rifles.
 
Quote:I surely don't believe--and in fact I know--that the number of cartridges I have available makes me an accurate-deadly-undeadly-dangerous shooter. Does having a 30-round mag in your AK-47 make you more dangerous?

In their eyes, yes. You, as described above would have the capability to fire on up to 30 targets within a short time.

The antis think more along the line of over/under shotguns when they think of private ownership.

They are either ignorant or uneducated enough to realize that with the O/U SHOTGUN you could launch at least 8 projectiles per trigger squeeze, or say, #1 buck is about 27 projectiles per trigger squeeze at an intended target.

The large problem is media coverage. If they would stop saying what kind of gun was used in a hideous crime, maybe some loser that wants to be "famous" or "infamous" as it were, would not know how it was done.
(a little late for that now)

The first mass shooting I ever heard about was tower sniper in TX. It was many years later that I heard about a man using an AK in a shooting. Since then, it's all you hear about. The sale of AKs skyrocketed.

I am of the opinion that if they didn't tell you what he used, anyone out there thinking along those lines might have just tried it with a Carcano or something.

By the way, the next time you meet an Anti, ask him what law would have stopped the shooting he is worked up about, then ask him what he thinks might have happened if the BG wasn't the only armed individual there?

I have been doing that and the usaual answer is, "well we gotta do SOMETHING about the wrong people gettin' all these guns."

My neighbor is from CT and keeps spouting off about the Hollywood shooting.
Mis-informed as usual, he rants about how the BGs "killed all of those police." I asked him how many were killed that day, and he says he doesn't know, but a lot.
He doesn't believe me when I tell him the BGs were the only ones killed.:banghead:

Yes, some were shot, but the only ones killed were the BGs. They were fired on by privately owned EBRs, commandeered by police from a local gunshop. I heard one actually realized he wasn't going to make it and ended his own life. (Where were all of those ARMOR PIERCING rounds now reserved for police/military use the police were supposed to have?)

I have listened objectively to his point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my arse. :D

I have heard hollow points refered to by NBC as "cop killer" bullets, :banghead:by that "journalist":barf: that follows the cyber-pedophile craze. I think his name is Chris Hansen.

Never under estimate the power of liberals over stupid people in large numbers!
 
Does anyone remember a few years back when Sarah Brady's son was given a "Sniper Rifle" for Christmas.......by his parents? A scoped, bolt-action rifle, a 30-06 IIRC
Click to expand...

Typical :rolleyes:

That said I say we continue calling them EBR's

As for Hi-Caps use the ATF description "Large Capacity Feeding Device" It will confuse them.
 
I would be wary of using the term "Homeland Defense Rifle".

"Homeland Defense" is a government run bureaucracy and they want all the power. "I'm from Washington and I'll make the decisions." IIRC, once FEMA got involved in Katrina, they prohibited volunteer workers from protecting themselves.

Perhaps better to use a term like American Defense Rifle or National Defense Rifle or even Militia Rifle :) I kind of like the last one, that way when someone responds "but you are not the militia", we can correct them.

Ken
 
It's a rifle. Pretending a civilian AK is somehow drastically different from a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle plays into the Bradyites' hands, IMHO.
 
There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons."
Click to expand...
Sure there is. It's called resisting the government. Do you think we would have had the Revolution if we hadn't had military-style assault weapons?
By the way, "military-style assault weapons" is a misnomer. All weapons are "military-style", that's part of what makes a weapon a weapon. Second, what are weapons used for if not assault? Nothing.
 
I have to admit that I don't even know any hunting boards to visit. But many of you do.

Why not repost the OP on those Boards and see if you can wake up some of their readers?
 
I don't think the problem is "buzz words", it's the ignorance of the public. Creating new terminology just creates more confusion. A high capacity magazine isn't evil, it is a big plus in a defensive gun use. After all, why would the police use them,(high capacity magazines) if they were only useful for a evil purpose. After all, if you are intent upon shooting innocent and unarmed victims, changing the magazine after each ten shots isn't going to affect you that much, while the same situation in a defensive gunfight, is likely to get you killed. Purdy, the man whose crime of shooting school children in Stockton California was used as an excuse to pass California's Assault Weapons Ban, shot the kids in such a liesurely rate, the high capacity magazine was irrelevant to the successful commision of the crime. Purdy had killed himself, after expending his ammunition long before the police arrived. Of course, they passed it anyway.

And the Brady's war against Hunting Rilfes is far from new. Former Senator Markey and Ted Kennedy have been taking turns introducing legislation to outlaw ammunition that is capable of penetrating police armor, (95% of rifle ammunition) for the past 20 years I would estimate. The current ban on armor-piercing pistol ammunition was written by the NRA for that very reason. In fact, I would consider the ban on the sale of 308AP, is an abuse of that law, since 308 handguns would probably never be used in a crime.

I also doubt that there are that many hunters, that don't know they are targets of the Bradys. I am sure that they exist, but I don't know any. I believe that people like Zumbo, make disparaging remarks against recreational/defensive shooters because they believe the hype. I think it's like the proverbial story of two hunters being chased by a bear where the one shoots his partner in the leg so, he can save himself.There is nothing unconstitutional about regulating hunting, so hunters tend to accept just about any restriction that comes along.
 
I've used "Homeland Defense Rifle," and "Evil Black Rifle," but I am stuck for one for "high capacity maganzine." They hold what they hold.
Click to expand...

Actualy high capacity is an old term, that predates the brady's and refered to large drums, like those used on the thompson.
Some laws even gave the legal definition of high capacity in those terms.

20 and 30 round magazines were considered standard, and drums like what the beta c mag were considered high capacity.

How things have changed that even people who consider themselves pro gun consider more than 10 rounds "high capacity."

20-30 round magazines are standard capacity if the firearm they were made for was originaly intended to use 20-30 round magazines.


If a handgun was originaly designed to use 15 round magazines then that is standard capacity for that firearm. Large capacity would be magazines that grossly stick out of the bottom of the pistol grip, obviously protruding far beyond the original dimensions of the firearm.
High capacity would be drums holding near 100 rounds that plug into the bottom.
 
If a handgun was originaly designed to use 15 round magazines then that is standard capacity for that firearm. Large capacity would be magazines that grossly stick out of the bottom of the pistol grip
Click to expand...

So according to this thinking my dawson +2 base pads do not mape my p-12 limmited into a 14 round mag however it only ads about 1/3 inch to the mag is not a high cap mag? Sorry I have known both durring and after the ban highcap for pistiol is generally more than 10 rounds and it does not make me irresponsible, anti gun, uninformed, or lending the hint of ok to the anti group.

Why are we trying to hide the truth of the matter call it as it is. the play on word game goes on and on and no one can win so it is a waist of time and energy:banghead:
 
So according to this thinking my dawson +2 base pads do not mape my p-12 limmited into a 14 round mag however it only ads about 1/3 inch to the mag is not a high cap mag? Sorry I have known both durring and after the ban highcap for pistiol is generally more than 10 rounds and it does not make me irresponsible, anti gun, uninformed, or lending the hint of ok to the anti group.
Click to expand...

Then you are not going back far enough, limiting yourself to around the time of the original federal ban.

Pistols holding over 10 rounds were not very common prior to autos becoming the standard. Even most GI 1911s held less.
Those were the days of revolvers.

However it was very common in rifles and carbines. They were never considered high capacity unless they were large drums. Standard capacity for a AR for example is 20-30 rounds. Using a 10 or 5 round magazine is well under standard capacity and would be substandard capacity.

Standard capacity for the m1918 BAR was 20 rounds.
Standard capacity for the Thompson Submachinegun was 20-30 round box magazines. High capacity was the 50-100 round drums.
The standard capacity of the M14 or M1A is 20-30 rounds.
The standard capacity of the AR15 or M16 is 20-30 rounds.
The list goes on and on.

The standard capacity of most modern rifles intended for medium to short range use is 20-30 rounds. Less is substandard capacity, and more is large or high capacity.
It is not a fixed number, it fluctuates depending on the firearm and the type of magazine it was designed to function with in the role it is intended for.
 
I understand what the Brady people are trying to do. But misinformation and demagogue pleas are not going to benefit their cause in the long run.
Click to expand...

The Brady people and Handgun Inc. and all the rest of the antis don't deal in fact and they aren't trying to sway the people that do deal in fact or look below the surface to find the fact. They cater to the naiveté who knows nothing about guns or only knows what their favorite tv personality tells them. Or that don't have the ability or are to lazy to think for themselves.

If they can convince these people that what they are saying is the truth, then with others that they already have on their side, they just possibly may have the leverage they need to push more anti-gun legistation through.

This being said, I am sad to say that this "misinformation and demagogue" will benefit their cause.
 
I don't think the problem is "buzz words", it's the ignorance of the public.
Click to expand...

I believe this is correct. If I suddenly started trying to ban cars by re-naming them "multi-ton people-crushing collision devices," people would just laugh. They know cars and are familiar with cars, so a propagandistic attempt to re-define them would be seen for what it is. Most of the public is quite ignorant of guns, though, and thus more susceptible to nonsense.

I also doubt that there are that many hunters, that don't know they are targets of the Bradys. I am sure that they exist, but I don't know any. {snip} I think it's like the proverbial story of two hunters being chased by a bear where the one shoots his partner in the leg so, he can save himself.
Click to expand...

There is an element of self-delusion here. There is so much negative propaganda about guns out there, lots of casual or infrequent gun owners/users don't want to feel targeted in that way. They don't want to identify themselves, even internally, with a group that is being painted as evil.

Therefore, if the anti's are seeming to give them a pass - "we won't come after you hunters; we're only after the evil black rifle types," they will often take the bait.

Churchill said something like this about the Western democracies in the years leading up to WWII. He compared them to a bunch of men in a cage with an alligator (or was it a lion?), making underhanded arrangements as to whom they're going to feed to the alligator next. Each one just wants to make sure it's someone else who gets fed to the alligator.

It is a bit cowardly, but it is human nature. At the same time they were colluding to hand over the Czechs and such to the Nazis, they were comforting themselves with the delusion that Hitler would be satisfied after swallowing up whomever he was currently attacking, and he wouldn't come after them next.

On some level, they must have known that this was just a comforting self-delusion, but on some other level they wanted to believe it was true and believe they could make themselves safe by pandering to alligator.

I was in a hunting cabin with a group of guys just after that Hmoung guy went rodeo in Wisconsin. They kept calling the SKS an 'assault rifle.' It was almost like an incantation: a magical belief that we're not like that because our rifles are different somehow.

Hitler was a genius about exploiting people psychologically, preying on their weaknesses; dividing and conquering. That is exactly the same tactics the Bradys are using when they go for an 'assault weapons' ban or a handgun ban or an 'armor piercing' ban. They are trying to carve out just one slice of gun owners to persecute, figuring that all the other gun owners will step back out of the way and let it happen. Then they can go after the next slice.

It is a very clever strategy, and often very effective.

The answer, of course, is to recognize that an attack on anyone's gun this week will turn into an attack on someone else's gun next week.
 
Very good on an individual FTF basis, Robert Hairless. (Post #20, page 1.)

But my concern is with how we can counter it "out there?" What strategies can we use? What alternatives to these terms can we present...

....out there?

I understand your frustration with me "ceding" the use of these negatively-loaded terms to the antis, but the reality is that in many respects we have to cede to the the reality itself. Specifying number of rounds only and challenging individuals on their definition is fine, but that technique covers only the six square feet on which you (or jtf in post #24, for example) and the other party are standing.

And jtf can "call someone out" for somehow "ceding" the use of these terms, but that isn't going to solve the problem.

Example: Now that the term "Rambo Knife*" has been introduced in Canada, how can we defuse the negative connotation ... out there?

OK, so I won't use the term "Rambo Knife" and therefore I won't be seen as "ceding" its use by jtf. But that does not solve the problem!

Like it or not, ignore it or not, tutelage on a person-to person basis or not, part of our battle is semantic.

And why do we always have to be reactive?

Surely, with all our collective concern about "tactics" in the strategic sense, and all the military thinkers we have on board, why can't we develop a general method, strategy, counter, what have you, to these semantic attacks? You suggest that it's impossible, but I don't believe in impossibilities.

Maybe we need a "Desert Fox" to think beyond the next dune.

I've done the best I could in trying to point out that it matters not what we don't do or don't say.

What matters is what we can do to address the realities.... "out there."

--------
* American Rifleman Jan 2008 p 24.
 
I wonder how many of these "armor piercing" rifles would be used on the people trying to confiscate them?
 
Aww crap, now they're going after sniper rifles. It was one thing when I was able to purchase AWs, but sniper rifles are expensive. I guess I could always buy an SKS and put a scope on it...
Click to expand...
Last I checked, the SKS was one of the "Evil" rifles too.
 
What I propose as a gun owner and enthusiasts, is when ever you hear these things being used correct the person using them and explain that the media and the brady campaign use things like this to forward an anti-gun/ anti-freedom agenda.
Click to expand...

Not me. Never.

You could call a Ruger 10/22 turnip greens and the antis would still demonize it and the media would hyperbolize it.

First they want my guns and then some within my own gun community want me to pacify these buttwipes by changing the way I describe my firearms???

Again. Not me. Never. No way in hell ever.

I don't own one single assault weapon. And I tell that to the stinking antis. I do, however, own a Mini-14, an SKS, an AK, a Colt AR and a few others. They are not, repeat, NOT assault weapons. I also tell the stinking antis that unlike them, I have USED real assault weapons and what I have in the Browning safe ain't assault weapons.

High capacity magazines? They are what they are and thus that is what I call them.

I am not "politically correct" and have zero intentions of even trying to be. To me, PC is just an amorphism for "phony." A gun is what is is. A hunter is what he/she is. A magazine is what it is.

As far as the antis, I am not of a mind to change or alter my ways in order to not piss them off or frighten them or appease them. Period. We've already seen that the more we give, the more they want to take.

To hell with them.

Jeff
 
Brady Campaign calls for ban on HUNTING ammunition.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good plan to me. I have enough to last a long, long time. Might prompt some to wake up and smell the coffee.

Fudd Y - “What was made illegal? What the f**k are you talking about?”

Fudd X - “Yeh, the president signed the bill yesterday.”

Fudd Y - “Bullsh**! You’re full of it.”

Fudd X – “Are you freekin deaf. Are you not hearing the words coming out of my mouth? All rifle ammunition of greater than .222 caliber has been banned from civilian sales in the US, except ammo already made.”

Fudd Y – “No way. That cannot happen. Those politicians cannot stop me from hunting. The Second Amendment says I have a ‘right’ to hunt.”

Fudd X – “You’re an idiot. Read the f**king newspaper or watch the news you moron”.

Fudd Y – “You’re not bullsh**ing me? C’mon. No f**king way. No way!”

Fudd X – “For the last time; no I am not messing with you. It is a done deal. Those dam’d crooked politicians. It is the Union’s fault. They told us to vote for those Democrats or the Republican’s would send all our jobs oversees and get rid of overtime pay. Both our senators, that ugly wench Stabenow and that Lenin guy voted for it.”

Fudd Y – “This is bullsh**. They cannot do this. Those sonab**ches. This is why I never vote. Those a**holes can never be trusted. What about reloading? Yeh, I will just reload. They can’t stop me from hunting.”

Fudd X – “Bullets larger than .222 are banned too. This pi**es me off. Dammit! I cannot believe the NRA allowed this. They are all a bunch of crooks too. Hell, I was even a member a couple times. I quit because I got sick of all the junk mail they sent me.”

Bla bla bla bla bla bla………………
 
How about if we refer to magazines by how much it costs to fill them? Any standard issue mag (EG, 20 or 30 for an AR, 17 for a Glock) would just be a "magazine." The silly 10rd ban-era mags would then be a "budget magazine." And then the larger ones (100rd Beta C or a 33rd G18 type) would be "deluxe" or "luxury" mags. :p

But, yea, as others have pointed out, letting them control the language has given them a slight edge in the debate. Taking words back so they mean things again would be nice, however at this point it might be rather difficult, as they have talking points for everything.

"Saturday Night Specials" are pretty much any small handgun.
"Assault pistols" seem to be all handgun larger than the above.

"Assault rifles/weapons" are rifles with pistol grips.
"Sniper rifles" are all rifles without pistol grips.

.22 and smaller calibers are all "stealthy assassin rounds" or something.
.223 and larger calibers are all "high-powered cop-killers."

Now it seems all FMJ ammo is allegedly "armor piercing."
And of course everything that's not FMJ is an eeeevil "exploding bullet" of some sort.

If we use their definitions, it doesn't really leave us with much, now, does it?
 
"But, yea, as others have pointed out, letting them control the language has given them a slight edge in the debate."

They have an "edge"? Not hardly. Follow this blog over to Huffington Post, and check out the 128 comments (about 120 from our side). The RKBA kicked butt, as always. :D

Thanks to all who signed on over there and helped out. Don't be strangers.
 
Would the 223 Rem go through body armor? What centerfire cartridge wouldn't go through body armor, a 45/70, 22 Hornet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Really need to rant on Brady Campaign...
Replies
11
Views
968
Don Gwinn
D
X
  • Locked
The Brady's have hatched a new tactic
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
4K
101AirborneE8
1
F
  • Locked
We Need to Inform Our Hunting Buddies!
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
6K
Hawk
H
T
  • Locked
Re: President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke's Statement
Replies
6
Views
623
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
S
  • Locked
Obama/Biden won the endorsement of the Brady Campaign
Replies
7
Views
626
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top